These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GM clarification on rewording of the Terms of Service

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#621 - 2013-09-11 20:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Confirming I am the only one true scammer in Eve. I will petition the rest who claim to be a scammer. (I will accept isk payments of 250mil as an "entry fee" into my "ingame group").

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Johan March
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#622 - 2013-09-11 20:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan March
CCP, you should sit down with your lawyers and some people who actually play this game and rethink this and, re-write the rules, from the ground up if necessary, surrounding "impersonation". I'm no legal wizard, but the English language has enough words where actual violations of the EULA can be addressed while normal meta-gaming is allowed or encouraged.

Skimming GM Karidor's clarifications I see where I could have been banned many times over and CCP would lose three paying accounts; all for what is considered "normal and customary" in EVE online. Bizzaro-world was the term used a few pages back. It was well said, in my opinion, this is where thread has gone.
Petrus Justinianus
Trinity Collective Co.
DammFam
#623 - 2013-09-11 20:32:45 UTC
so can we just burn jita again already

plot twist: everyone say their doing it on behalf of another person/entity, then everyone petition each other.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#624 - 2013-09-11 20:33:03 UTC
Vatek wrote:
Would the real DBRB please bark bark bark


I already filed a petition to have that character banned for falsely representing DaBigRedBoat.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#625 - 2013-09-11 20:35:16 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
We're at 31 pages, can we get a new expanded "clarification" in a new thread and lock this one, tia


Here's my clarification, of the clarification of the clarification for the new TOS.


"**** be be ****** yo"
Pipa Porto
#626 - 2013-09-11 20:35:16 UTC
I'm an alt of RubyPorto.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#627 - 2013-09-11 20:35:44 UTC
http://i.imgur.com/hOF3T6I.png

https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/377891989263777792

Apparently the problem is we're not being nice, guys

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#628 - 2013-09-11 20:37:11 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Pipa Porto wrote:
I'm an alt of RubyPorto.


She is, but...

Uh-Oh...

GM Karidor wrote:
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.



Dang, and Pipa was a useful character, too.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#629 - 2013-09-11 20:39:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.

They have emphatically spoke about how great it is that things like the Ubiqua Seraph heist could only occur in Eve, an event that was 100% deception surrounding who the alts were. (Soundwave has spoken highly of this fact on camera .. you'll need to sleuth out exactly where and when, though).
They have literally produced a trailer for the game (causality) loosely based on similar events.
They recently plastered the Revenent kill all over their own site and media outlets, an event that was based on an alt lying about who he was to get into the corp.
The various eve bank scams have all heavily violated the new TOS, yet CCP lauded them as uniquely possible in eve.

I could go on a while if I was inclined to look them up.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#630 - 2013-09-11 20:40:15 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
I'm an alt of RubyPorto.


She is, but...

Uh-Oh...

GM Karidor wrote:
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.



Dang, and Pipa was a useful character, too.


RIP BRAVE WAFFLE ALT
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#631 - 2013-09-11 20:41:12 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Confirming I am the only one true scammer in Eve. I will petition the rest who claim to be a scammer. (I will accept isk payments of 250mil as an "entry fee" into my "ingame group").


Are you saying:

You're the EVE Scammer, yes you're the real Scammer
All the other EVE Scammers are just imitating
So won't the real EVE Scammer please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ralegna Porthar
Kick B0rt
#632 - 2013-09-11 20:46:29 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.

They have emphatically spoke about how great it is that things like the Ubiqua Seraph heist could only occur in Eve, an event that was 100% deception surrounding who the alts were. (Soundwave has spoken highly of this fact on camera .. you'll need to sleuth out exactly where and when, though).
They have literally produced a trailer for the game (causality) loosely based on similar events.
They recently plastered the Revenent kill all over their own site and media outlets, an event that was based on an alt lying about who he was to get into the corp.
The various eve bank scams have all heavily violated the new TOS, yet CCP lauded them as uniquely possible in eve.

I could go on a while if I was inclined to look them up.


I was going to cite the Revenant kill as well. With the large amount of media attention, yet it was all due to a spy. Which is against TOS now.

Makes sense to me.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#633 - 2013-09-11 20:46:43 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

GMs don't create policy like this.

This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.
xBumper Baby
Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpackers
#634 - 2013-09-11 20:48:12 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

this is bad ccp sux


Seriously though. This sounds very much like the day EVE bacame just another dumbed-down, sugar-coated, click-fest for the masses. Might as well move it from PC to console.
Titus Phook
Doomheim
#635 - 2013-09-11 20:48:44 UTC
I may, or may not, be an alt of one or more posters in this thread. I hear that there's a new team at CCP, and they're in charge of being making all of the things a bannable offence.

They said I could be anything I wanted, so I became fabulous.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#636 - 2013-09-11 20:50:12 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

GMs don't create policy like this.

This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.

No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#637 - 2013-09-11 20:50:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Confirming I am the only one true scammer in Eve. I will petition the rest who claim to be a scammer. (I will accept isk payments of 250mil as an "entry fee" into my "ingame group").


Are you saying:

You're the EVE Scammer, yes you're the real Scammer
All the other EVE Scammers are just imitating
So won't the real EVE Scammer please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?



LOL

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#638 - 2013-09-11 20:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Ali Aras wrote:
Prroductive posting is fine and great. I use it as a CSM member to distill into better feedback; you're right that I don't read any minds. I also receive substantial assistance in representation via private messages such as evemails. I do also *play* the game, and have been both perpetrator and victim of the types of scams covered under this update. The bit about rioting in this thread was to attempt to dissuade people from making 100x posts saying "this is bad ccp sux see the csm agrees"; contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done.

Oh hey, see I didn't realize you were just badly misinformed / ignorant. That makes it easier to understand your posting. Because, unless you want to rewrite Eve history, mass outcry is the ONLY thing that has ever made CCP listen, about ANYTHING.

The whole reason people are turning this into a riot is we all know too ******* well that reasoned discourse falls on death ears (read - all CCPs press releases after incarna) and that forcing CCP to listen to what the majority of the players want is the only thing that works. It sucks, but dems the breaks.

Last time the CSM chair had to fly to Iceland and beat CCP over the head until they 'got it' -- this time apparently the CSM are ineffectual Yes-men, so who knows what will happen next.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#639 - 2013-09-11 20:51:36 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

GMs don't create policy like this.

This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.



Didn't Jester on Jester's Trek touch on something like a HUGE change that may or may not excite some people...

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#640 - 2013-09-11 20:51:50 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting". Last I heard, rioting worked pretty well to reverse the Incarna trainwreck!

Brushing us off with "okay we're gonna yap with CCP about this and release a crappy devblog 2 months from now that doesn't actually address anything" sucks.

Productive posting is fine and great. I use it as a CSM member to distill into better feedback; you're right that I don't read any minds. I also receive substantial assistance in representation via private messages such as evemails. I do also *play* the game, and have been both perpetrator and victim of the types of scams covered under this update. The bit about rioting in this thread was to attempt to dissuade people from making 100x posts saying "this is bad ccp sux see the csm agrees"; contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done.

I was unaware that posting acknowledging concerns and promising to use the tools at my disposal to work to resolve them constituted a "brush-off". I meant what I said when I said that I'd seen a lot of good come out of the CSM process, more than just "a devblog once in a while". The fact that we work primarily under NDA and outside of the public eye can make it hard to see, especially when our efforts avert a crisis instead of responding to one.


With whom did this policy originate? It had to be at the producer level. Is this Seagull's vision for EVE Online?